|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3876 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Evidence please.
Where is the evidence for randon mutations in metazoa?
All life is exposed to mutagens, random mistakes by polymerases, indels, recombination events, and exogenous insertion of repetitive elements (e.g. transposons). We can see this in the divergence of non-coding DNA between species. The process of mutation in ALL life produces deleterious, neutral, and beneficial effects.
As it happens as well with guided mutations through environmental information. You keep forgetting that guided mutations producedeleterious anetral mutations as well.
Also, I have yet see evidence of any god or a plan set by this unevidenced god. Why would I include something for which there is no evidence?
You cant avoid to see the eternal flow of informatio from environment to organism. But you prefer to ignore its significance to evolution.
So says the person who thinks, without evidence, that there is a supernatural plan at work in evolution. You are projecting.
It could be, if you prefer, just a flow of information. You are negative in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
If i am right, i don't think you ever mention any study in metazoa to prove random mutations. Here is one done in humans:
quote: This study calculated the human mutation rate by measuring the occurence of deleterious mutations in a well defined population. They compared their results to mutation rate needed to produce the divergence seen in chimp and human pseudogenes (i.e. neutral mutations). If mutations are random with respect to fitness in humans then the two values should be close, and they are. On top of this, there is no known system by which metazoans can specifically mutate their DNA in response to a specific stimuli. All of the sources of mutation that we know of are random with respect to fitness. Polymerases are incapable of determining which mutations will affect fitness. Repair mechanisms are incapable of determining the same. Environmental mutagens can not tell which mutations will increase or decrease fitness. You claim that there are such systems, but you fail to even describe them, much less evidence them. Is it any wonder why scientists conclude that mutations are random? They are following the evidence, and the evidence clearly indicates random mutations with respect to fitness.
Existence even of tiny signal of directed mutations, as you say, it shows that there is , never mind how rare it is, the mechanism to suceed it. So why you so insistantly used to ask me to present that mechanism? Why do you insist that it exists when you have no evidence that it exists?
I suggest neural system to bridge this division.
We need evidence, not suggestions. Anyone can play make-believe. Anyone can make stuff up. What we are interested in is what is real. Surely you know this?
If you remain unable to bring the needed evidence, i insist there is fiddling with. Says the person unwilling to present evidence to back their claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3876 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Taq provided 'some' evidence.
You provided 'no' evidence. If this was a competition then not only would Taq be winning, but you would not even have started playing yet. You can argue all you want about how much weight to give Taq's evidence, but it will always be infinitely weightier than the zero evidence you have supplied.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3876 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Taq provided 'some' evidence.
This discussion is not a competition between me and Taq or another member of this forum. It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.You provided 'no' evidence. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given. Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.Taq provided 'some' evidence. You provided 'no' evidence. So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes:
But if it was, then Taq would be winning. That is how the conjunction 'if' works.
This discussion is not a competition between me and Taq or another member of this forum. zi ko writes:
The only person making unwarranted and unevidenced claims is you. It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.You have provided no evidence. If you think that makes your 'theory' feeble, then I think we are all in agreement. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3876 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
The only person making unwarranted and unevidenced claims is you.
I have stated it from the very begining of this thread that i couldn't provide any evidence. But your admission that Taq had provided 'some' evidence was a very big help to my position that Modern Synthesis theory was an nonproved theory or rather a hypothesis as regards the random mutations part of it. Isn't it a big joke? You have provided no evidence Taq provided 'some' evidence. You provided 'no' evidence. So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
zi ko writes:
And, as stated from the beginning of this thread, there is evidence of random mutations. I have stated it from the very begining of this thread that i couldn't provide any evidence. At that point, you should have just stopped posting.
zi ko writes:
Your theory is a big joke? Isn't it a big joke?Yes - it would appear so. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
So this famed evidence about random mutations in metazoa ends up to an indirect estimation by a scientist, who in 2002, hopes that other scientists, during next decade (which already had ended), would rather make a direct measurement, evidently necessary for any conclusion!!!!
The indirect measurement is more than enough to test the hypothesis. You claim that mutations are guided in metazoans. Where are your direct measurements?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10302 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
It is about fiddling with the whole evolution community of this forum (only?) in order to presend a feeble theory (e.g random mutations role in evolution) as a fact, with unwarranted claims.
I am presenting random mutations as a conclusion drawn from evidence. I have given you this evidence. You claim mutations are guided. You have offered zero evidence. It appears that your attempts to "fiddle with" the scientific community is rather feeble, and incompetent at that. Please present evidence for your claims or withdraw the claims. It is as simple as that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3876 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 110 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
In summarion
Once again zi ko provides no evidence for the same old theory in yet another thread. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3876 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
SUMMATION.
Firstly I would like to thank all, without any exception, participants of the thread. As far as it concerns my most important and provocative new ideas, I can say: NEURAL INVOLVEMENT AS A CAUSATIVE FACTOR IN EVOLUTION. It i s still far from being proved. But the trend of expanding scientific work on neural system, I hope, will give at least some causative role of neural system on evolution process. As the importance of information flow from environment, ending to genome, is more and more gaining scientific recognition, the role of neural system is going to be more accepted. EMPATHY AS ESSENSIAL MECHANISM OF INFORMATION TRANSFER RELATIVE TO EVOLUTION is going to be even more difficult. THERE ARE BOTH TYPES OF MUTATIONS RANDOM AND DIRECTED. Here I felt being astonished. All over these months of conversation I was bombarded by big mouth accusations for not presenting evidence. And it ended that fanatic advocates of hard scientific evidence, presented without any shame, as the only evidence of randomness in mutation for metazoa, the indirect measurements of a researcher at 2002, who hopes on next decade ( we are already in 2012) other scientists would make the direct measurements !! And we talk about the main pillar of classic Darwinism and the Modern Theory as well. At least Taq talks about the hypothesis of randomness. So Modern Theory is not a Theory, but simply ahypothesis!!!! Maybe these truths were the reason for Percy to treat me so unfairly!!! 'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024